Argument for God from the existence of morality....

This article is going to look at the philosophical implications of morality and how deductively the existence of morality proves a Theistic metaphysics to reality (God exists) rather than an atheistic metaphysics to reality (God does not exist).

Before we start the deductive argument I am firstly going to cover some issues so that the argument is clear to those following it...

A deductive argument is one that if the form of the argument is correct and the premises are true the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.

Here is an example argument:

(Example deductive argument)

P1: All men are mortal.

P2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Now firstly the form of that argument is correct, that is to say if both those premises are true the conclusion would logically and necessarily follow (like 2+2=4).

Secondly we must ask are the premises correct (or more likely true than not for a probability argument), if not then the conclusion does not follow, but if so then the conclusion necessarily and logically follows.

So if you disagree with the conclusion of the deductive argument I will post on morality, you must first show a premise to be false.

>Philosophical distinctions which must be known when assessing morality<

The first distinction which should be known is the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology...

(1)Moral Ontology: This is basically looking at whether a moral reality actually exists, it is looking at whether there is truly a distinction in reality between moral and immoral actions or whether that distinction that we experience is a delusion (moral ontology is not looking at which actions fit into the category of moral or immoral or how we can know which actions are moral or immoral; it is only looking at whether such a distinction truly exists in reality).

(2)Moral Epistemology: This presupposes that ontological morality exists, it then asks how can we know which actions are moral and which are immoral.

The second distinction which should be known is that morality (like anything else) is either discovered or is a human construct...

(1) Discovered: This is to say it exists objectively in a reality that is outside you and I, it is something which is objective to both you and I outside ourselves and we know it exists because we have discovered it somehow (examples of this might be mathematics or the moon for example).

(2) Invented as a human construct: This is to say it exists in the minds of humans only, it does not exist outside of those minds in an objective reality outside of myself or ourselves (so it can be shared between humans who both perceive it the same way in their minds).

For example it could be something like a mirage in a desert, many people might see a mirage in the same place and build a fence around it etc... but it is a mirage non-the less and does not exist objectively outside of the humans concept of reality (and in this example it would clearly be a delusion if the people claimed it was real outside their misrepresentation of reality which is going on in their minds).

>Atheism and Theism from a philosophical content position<

Based on the logical law of excluded middle there are only two options as to what the metaphysical ontology of reality could be; that being the ontology of the metaphysics of reality is either Personal or Impersonal....

So the two options in more detail are:

(1) Reality in it's metaphysics (fundamental forces and processes) is impersonal: that is to say it is intentionless, purposeless, meaningless, unguided, unaware and lacks teleology.

(2) Reality in its metaphysics (fundamental forces and processes) is personal: that is to say it is intentional, purposeful, meaningful, guided, aware and has teleology.

Now position (2) would normally be classed under Theism and thus atheism being the absence of Theism (that is what the "A" means in Atheism, just like Asymmetrical means the absence of symmetry on a specific aspect of reality) would fall under position (1).

Now if a person says either position is more likely than the other to be true, they have a burden of proof.

>>The deductive argument for God from morality<<

P1: Morality ontologically exists.

P2: An atheistic metaphysics can not account for the existence of a ontological morality.

Our experience of a moral reality is what philosophers call a 'properly basic' belief. That is to say it is a belief that is grounded in it's self and is not inferred from anything else which is more fundamental to it; examples of this are things like our experience of consciousness, our experience of a visual external world of objects, our experience of self awareness and our experience of a moral reality which is the point in question.

So there is no epistemic reason to doubt our experience of a moral reality as being true unless we can produce a defeater for it (otherwise we should take it as properly basic to believe it like we do all other properly basic experiences); in fact don't we as a society view people who don't experience a moral reality as insane, broken and in need of repair (we label them things like sociopath etc..)...

Philosopher Louise Antony put it this way:

"Any argument for moral skepticism is going to based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of objective moral values themselves"; therefore you would never be justified in accepting moral skepticism.

Some defeaters which may be brought up to try and say why we should not believe our experience of a moral reality as being true are:

(A) The epistemic problem: This is where a defeater to our experience of an ontological moral experience of reality is brought into question because of an epistemic issue...

The issue goes something like this "people will quantify morality differently and come up with different moral conclusions, therefore morality can not be objectively outside themselves and discovered some how but is rather a delusional human construct".

Answer: This conclusion can not be the case if you accept any other experience of reality to discover something of an objective reality. For example people do not quantify mathematical equations the same, or logic or sense perceptions (some say they do not see colours etc...) sometimes etc... but we do not conclude that those sense perceptions are illusions only in the mind and that have no reflection on reality; rather we assume there is a correct perception of reality regarding that experience and some people just have an incorrect perception of reality via that experience which does not reflect objective reality (we must just work out which one is correct, not write off that category of experience as an illusion). There is a lot more I could say on this but that is the simple explanation...

(B)The Darwinian objection: This goes something like "We evolved our experience of a moral reality through Darwinistic processes, therefore they can not be relied upon".

Answer: This is a very silly argument, remember that our experience of a moral reality is either discovered or a construct; whether we evolved via a Darwinistic method from a common descent theory or not it would have no bearing on whether a moral reality exists; the question rather is this, is our experience of a moral reality discovered or a construct of mind.

If the conclusion here is Darwinism came up with our morality, therefore our morality is false; you could run a parody reductio ad absurdum argument saying "our tendency to do physics, chemistry, biology and even evolutionary theory is it's self rooted in adaptation; so on that same premise they would equally be undermined". The same goes for our reasoning and our senses.

So as we see there are no defeaters really for us to doubt our properly basic experience of a moral reality, and also to refuse our experience of a moral reality you would have to rationalize to an absurdity (never mind it can not be truly lived out). Examples of the absurdity you would have to conclude if you say our experience of a moral reality is an illusion are:

(A) Are you really saying the person who says something like "torturing a baby for fun is immoral" is as delusional as the schizophrenic (which would have to be the case as they are both experiencing things which are not part of an objective reality)?

(B) Are you really saying the person who says something like "torturing a baby for fun is immoral" is saying something as meaningless as the person who says "clouds moving through the air is an immoral act" (as morality would not ontologically exist in reality and thus have no objectivity and no quantification; and therefore it is just as misapplied in both cases, one can not be more delusional than the other because morality does no exist at all so no quantification for which one was closer to the correct and rational mark)?

Again don't we as a society view people who don't experience a moral reality as insane, broken and in need of repair (we label them things like sociopath etc..) not the other way around. So it is very safe to conclude premise 1 is correct...

>Premise 2<

Now remember in the issues section I reviewed the content of Theism and atheism, and on that note I will precede...

Morality is what philosophers call as "oughtness", that is the way we ought to think, talk and act.

Now for reality to have oughtness it means reality must have a purpose, meaning and design in the form of teleology (end goals and purposes); but for reality to have this Theism would have to be true.

Unless reality came out of GOD, reality can have no purpose, as "purpose" is an existential property (which is the property of a personal Being - Purpose requires a purpos"er" so to speak).

So unless there is a purpose and meaning to life and reality (with teleological goals) then there is no right or wrong way to talk, think or act.

So under an atheistic world view people might not like certain behavior, but that is only for the same ontological reason of why a person would not like chocolate ice cream compared to vanilla ice cream; personal preference, which based on the philosophical materialist world view is just an epiphenomenal byproduct of deterministic chemical reactions.

So under the atheist world view the experience of an ontological moral reality is delusional and that experience is ontologically nothing more than a preference to behaviour (the same way some one might prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, some one prefers torturing babies to not torturing babies - they are just random desires under atheism and both are as true as the other because neither has an objective basis in reality).

So unless the atheist can show how an ontological moral experience is actually nothing more than a delusion based on nothing more than a preference to behaviour it is very safe to conclude that premise 2 is true.

I have more reasons for why premise 2 is true but I feel this will suffice...

>Conclusion<

Remember under the issues section I showed how if both premises are correct the conclusion logically and necessarily follows (as sure as 2+2=4), and that conclusion is atheism is false and Theism is true. Now in light of this conclusion please view some videos below which are relevant:

Your attempt to disprove the evolutionary development of social constructs (including morality) is filled with gross misconceptions and misrepresentations of biology, evolution and evolutionary psychology. (Hint: the use of a term like "Darwinistic processes" demonstrates that you really do not understand what you are talking about.

You attack the epistimological counter argument by dredging up a bunch of comparisons that are absolutely laughable. Mathematics works regardless of the cultural context in which it is placed, for example. Two cultures may come up with different notations for the same thing, but at the end of the day, x + y = y + x, I don't care what culture you put it into.

The rest of your straw man arguments are similarly flawed, I'm not going to spend all night taking them to pieces.

Further, your argument presupposes the existence of what most religions call an "objective morality", something which is highly questionable when one looks around the world at the different cultures and moral creeds that each culture has developed.

As an aside, although deductive reasoning is an important tool in formulating logically consistent arguments, so are tools such as induction, as well as a solid understanding of completeness, consistency and verifiability. An argument filled with as many unstated assumptions and straw man claims is no argument at all.

50 months ago

@Michelle...

Wow, you are angry, calm down.

Firstly how can a deductive argument be a strawman argument, if the form is true and the premises are correct the conclusion logically and necessarily follows.

All you can say is that one of the premises is false, not that it is a strawman argument (how can the conclusion atheism is false be a strawman, a strawman is when you attack a position your opponent does not hold).

Before I address the first premise I would like to clear up that I am not talking about "objective morality" (which you tried to claim).

I am talking about moral ontology, I define this in the introduction. Moral ontology if correct is just the position that there is a true distinction in reality which exists between moral and immoral actions; it is in no way stating anything more in terms of moral epistemology (like which values are the correct or incorrect ones).

All Moral statements are grounded on the assumption of a moral ontology existing in reality.

So we have two options, either moral ontology exist in the metaphysics of reality (thus we are discovering it), or it is a delusion which only exists in our minds (thus morality is a delusion - this is because moral statements are claims about reality; for example if I say "Peter is wearing a hat" it is as much a claim about the nature of reality as when I say "Peter has done an immoral action". If moral ontology exists there is foundation for such a statement, but if not then moral ontology only exists in my mind and not reality, and thus my experience of a moral reality is as delusional as the person who sees everyone wearing hats in his subjective mind but when actuality they are not).

Now addressing premise (1) I give two reasons as to why our experience of a moral reality should not be considered delusional (there are more arguments for moral ontology, but I left it at two).

Firstly our experience of a moral reality is what philosophers call 'properly basic'. What this is is a group of beliefs about reality which are fundamental, what this means is that there is nothing more fundamental than this belief which we are inferring to this present belief from (so this includes things like self awareness, an external world of objects, consciousness etc.. and a moral reality which is the point in question)...

Now a person can not just whimsically deny one of their properly basic experiences with out a reason, otherwise they have an incoherent epistemic criteria.

So to justify denying a properly basic belief we need a defeater. That is when I present the only defeaters I know of which have been used against premise (1) being true, but both of them fail.

The second reason I give for why premise (1) should be considered true is that it leads to two types of reductio ad absurum if we do not. One of these is an unlivable life and the other is a reasoning which would require absurd beliefs about people who make moral judgments (which I stated two paragraphs on).

So all in all I think premise (1) is very safe, it is a bottom up premise (and is totally neutral of any top down metaphysical reasoning).

The second premise does a top down metaphysical reasoning to decide which world view is true once premise (1) was established.

Anyway I think the argument is very safe...

God bless

50 months ago

1) You clearly do not understand what a Straw Man argument is.

Take a long, hard look at your premises and your attempt to knock down the atheist position (as you imagine it) - this is a straw man argument.

2) All Moral statements are grounded on the assumption of a moral ontology existing in reality.

Which you have provided exactly zero evidence for.

3) So we have two options, either moral ontology exist in the metaphysics of reality (thus we are discovering it), or it is a delusion which only exists in our minds (thus morality is a delusion - this is because moral statements are claims about reality

You are creating a false dichotomy here. Because you have not established in any reasonable manner that morals exist in the "metaphysics of reality", your either/or claim here is utterly ridiculous.

4) The second reason I give for why premise (1) should be considered true is that it leads to two types of reductio ad absurum if we do not. One of these is an unlivable life and the other is a reasoning which would require absurd beliefs about people who make moral judgments (which I stated two paragraphs on).

Again, you have not substantiated the validity of these claims. You have made the claim, but provided no evidence that the claim itself has any truth value outside of a philosophy paper.

5) Your argument is safe if and only if readers accept your suppositions as valid. Unfortunately for your argument, nobody here is likely to accept your argument as valid in the absence of evidence to support the claims you are making.

6) Your reasoning regarding the validity of your premises are what turn your entire argument into a straw man argument.

7) Go find some good evidence to back up your suppositions, and maybe there's something to discuss. At the moment, what I see is the usual nonsense arguments about the validity of the theistic position with no evidence to support it. You've buried it in an amazing amount verbiage, but that just follows the old undergraduate adage "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit"

8) You haven't seen me angry ...

50 months ago

As I said before, all this gibberish can be cut through with a simple sentence.

It is not the structure of the logic which establishes something as true but the quality of the evidence presented. If you have no evidence then all you have are assertions. In which case what your argument happens to be is a loop, you are using unproven assertions to prove your unproven assertions.

50 months ago

(1) How have I attempted to knock down a straw man position. Please show me the exact straw man I attacked.

(2) I do not need to give evidence for that position lol. It is axiomatically true, unless you are saying there is no definitional difference between wrong VS right, or Ougnt not VS ought too, then clearly moral statements rest on a quantitative contrast. No offence but you seem like a total village atheist.

(3) In philosophy our experience is known to be either something discovered of the objective world, or an experience that is purely subjective and in our minds alone (thus our experience of a moral reality is discovering something about the objective world or exists purely in our minds subjectively like a mirage in a desert).

If you think there is another option as to the experience of reality being purely subject or objective of reality then be my guest and explain it, oh and as you say "prove it". Otherwise stop making outlandish statements like false dichotomy which you can not substantiate.

(4) The claims I made are totally valid, if people conclude morality is a delusion then all statements of morality are delusional (I give two examples). It seems to me you have never study ethics in your life, yet you want to school people who have. This is honestly one of the most emotional knee jerk reaction and ill thought out posts I have seen in a long time.

Look I am busy and can not just go down this silly list.

You have two premises, you have given no arguments against either premises and just made ridiculous claims that don't address anything.

If you want to respond just tell me which premise is false and give me your single best argument why...

God bless

Updated 50 months ago by the author.

50 months ago

@Kate...

Saying premise (1) is an unproven assertion is like saying being self aware or feeling emotions is an unproven assertion. These are our properly basic experiences of reality lol. I honestly see more and more how the Bible is true when it says the unbelievers have darkened minds. I am almost certain if premise (1) did not prove Theism or if it proved atheism you guys would be jumping all over how obviously true it is.

Premise (2) I give exact reasoning for, if there is no purpose to reality then there is no oughtness to reality (which is what morality is).

God bless

50 months ago

Here is an article I have which addresses what I mean by darkened hearts and minds (not in regards to premise (1), but premise (1) is denied so vehemently because what it infers and that is where the darkening is being active)...

(B)The Darwinian objection: This goes something like "We evolved our experience of a moral reality through Darwinistic processes, therefore they can not be relied upon".

Answer: This is a very silly argument, remember that our experience of a moral reality is either discovered or a construct; whether we evolved via a Darwinistic method from a common descent theory or not it would have no bearing on whether a moral reality exists; the question rather is this, is our experience of a moral reality discovered or a construct of mind.

If the conclusion here is Darwinism came up with our morality, therefore our morality is false; you could run a parody reductio ad absurdum argument saying "our tendency to do physics, chemistry, biology and even evolutionary theory is it's self rooted in adaptation; so on that same premise they would equally be undermined". The same goes for our reasoning and our senses.

Allow me to explain: You set up a grossly inaccurate misrepresentation of evolution and how it plays into the development of morals. Then you proceed to knock it down.

_THIS_ is what is called a "Straw Man" argument. Go do some credible research into the topic you are pontificating about, and then explain why the argument is "silly". Your reductio ad absurdum claim doesn't exactly make your point for you, since you have neither adequately substantiated your assertions about evolution.

(2) I do not need to give evidence for that position lol. It is axiomatically true, unless you are saying there is no definitional difference between wrong VS right, or Ougnt not VS ought too, then clearly moral statements rest on a quantitative contrast. No offence but you seem like a total village atheist.

You do know what an axiom is? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom ) Your claim that "All Moral statements are grounded on the assumption of a moral ontology existing in reality." is an "axiom" has absolutely no basis. I say to you: Prove that this statement is true.

(3) In philosophy our experience is known to be either something discovered of the objective world, or an experience that is purely subjective and in our minds alone

... and you have done exactly nothing to provide a shred of evidence that there is an objective morality. I have heard plenty of claims that there is such a thing, but frankly nobody has ever demonstrated the truth of that claim. Usually, the argument comes down to discussions about the societal construct of morality, which mysteriously seems to evolve out of personal morality and then gets codified by some eager scribe and suddenly we get people arguing that there is an "objective morality" when all that you really have is a social contract that has emerged over time, and will change over time.

(4) The claims I made are totally valid, if people conclude morality is a delusion then all statements of morality are delusional (I give two examples). It seems to me you have never study ethics in your life, yet you want to school people who have. This is honestly one of the most emotional knee jerk reaction and ill thought out posts I have seen in a long time.

Don't be so certain about what I have and have not studied.

If you're such an expert, start citing your sources. So far, I see a lot of assertions being made with absolutely nothing to back them up.

Remember, _YOU_ are the person coming here to make a positive claim (namely that morality proves that "god" exists). So, PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.

50 months ago

@Michelle

In response to your points, but firstly...

You totally do not understand the burden of proof here. I have two premises, if you are going to make the positive claim that they are more likely false than true, you also must demonstrate why (until then you can rationally be agnostic on there validity at best). So if you want to make the positive claim they are false (and not just a 50/50 chance) you must first knock down all my positive claims for why the premises should be considered true (which only gets us to an agnostic position on whether they are true or not) then in there place erect your own positive arguments for why we should consider the premises false.

>>>>>>>>>>(1)<<<<<<<<<<

How on earth is this a straw man?!?!?

The basis of the claim is that Darwinian adaptation can be used to give some reason that moral ontology is more likely false than true based on it being due to adaptation behavior\survival (but this argument fails). If you know any other Darwinian based argument to try and say moral ontology is more likely false than true please fill me in (or stop the straw man allegation, which is ridiculous any way because that argument I made is still an argument even if you know two separate arguments. So it is not a straw man at all).

OK I then go onto explain why this claim is false.

Firstly its false because based on the logical law of identity survival behavior is not the same as moral ontology.

I for example could think it is morally wrong that me and my group survive in the wild because we are morally reprehensible for certain actions we have done or for what our survival will entail; so survival is not the same as what is morally right or wrong. So making survival behavior patterns synonymous with morality is a breaking of the logical law of identity (they are two separate things).

Also if we evolved via Darwinian mechanisms and through common descent it makes no difference on whether moral ontology is true or not (I do not believe in common descent theory personally though).

Either we evolved to discover moral ontology (that we discovered some how in the metaphysics of reality) or we evolved it is a delusion and that there is no oughness to reality (either claim needs reasons - I have at least two positive arguments for why we should consider our moral experience as a true experience of reality).

I will now show how the Darwinian argument looks like deductively:

(Darwinian argument against an experience of reality)

P1: Experience (X) came about via Darwinian adaptation

P2: An experience which is the result of Darwinian adaptation will be a false experience (or more likely false than true)

If this argument makes (X) our experience of a moral reality, it also has to make (X) our experience of a reality of physics, chemistry, biology, reason, sense perception and even evolutionary theory it's self (as all these came about via a Darwinian process).

Basically because every experience is the result of Darwinian adaptation, then this argument would make every experience a false experience (so it is a failed argument).

Also in regards to evolutionary psychology even atheist philosophers are saying how bad it is at just hand waving, for example the great (non-theist) philosopher Thomas Nagel just wrote a book called:

" Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False"...

So on top of addressing the actual argument I want to say the role of Darwinism in psychology often appears to be to create stories about how we become how we are. But Darwinism does this too well—what I mean is that it can explain anything, and thus explains nothing. If a man is promiscuous, it’s because natural selection favored his ancestors who had as many mates as possible. If he is faithful, it’s because natural selection favored offspring whose fathers were around to protect them. Evolution can even ‘explain’ how homosexuality confers a selective advantage (supposedly these individuals who didn’t have progeny of their own were around to care for their nieces and nephews, who got the advantage of another adult caring for them)! It can explain why women are very selective about their mates, except when they aren’t, and it can explain that, too. Something so flexible isn’t useful for predicting anything, but is useful when someone wants a ‘just-so’ story to bolster a pre-existing belief.

>>>>>>>>>>(2)<<<<<<<<<<

I honestly don't know whether to laugh at such a ridiculous point or cry, one thing is for sure in my mind and that is that you win the village atheist award hands down.

Moral ontology is the position that there is a distinction between moral and immoral actions in reality.

So of course when a person makes a moral statement they assume axiomatically moral ontology exists lol.

If there was no distinction between moral and immoral actions you could not make a moral statement, your statement presupposes (axiom) that such a thing is true or you could not say something was moral or immoral lol.

>>>>>>>>>>(3)<<<<<<<<<<

Again I am not arguing moral epistemology which I already stated, I am not saying what is an objective moral value.

I am arguing that our experience of a moral reality in the form of moral ontology should be considered true (I gave two arguments why).

So basically we experience a moral reality, and that experience is founded on the position there is a distinction in reality between moral and immoral actions. So I am not arguing which actions fit into the moral category and which fit into the immoral category (that is moral epistemology).

Also you keep saying prove things, yet you will make a statement like this

"we get people arguing that there is an "objective morality" when all that you really have is a social contract that has emerged over time, and will change over time"

with no evidence on the ontology of morality at all (just a claim which entails we take one of experiences of reality as delusional; quite a claim with nothing to back it up).

>>>>>>>>>>(4)<<<<<<<<<<

In conclusion both my premise hold up...

For my first premise (which is argued from the bottom up): the first argument is argued for being true on the basis that it is a proper basic belief. This means it is a belief that is fundamental and not inferred from anything more fundamental, like for example the properly basic belief of self awareness, consciousness and a world of external objects etc...

So if you are going to deny morality and not any other experience from that category, you can not do it whimsically (other wise you have an irrational and inconsistent epistemic criteria for modeling reality) but have to give a defeater.

Seeing as there is no defeater, then this remains a positive argument for why morality should be believed (and if you make the positive claim morality is a delusion you have to first knock down this argument which only gets you to agnosticism and then in it's place erect your own positive argument for why our experience of moral reality is a delusion).

So I am perfectly justified to believe my experience of a moral reality is true, and I would not be as rude as you are to tell people they are delusional for making moral claims. This brings me to my second argument for why we should consider our moral experience true. You have to admit to these statements:

(A) Are you really saying the person who says something like "torturing a baby for fun is immoral" is as delusional as the schizophrenic (which would have to be the case as they are both experiencing things which are not part of an objective reality)?

(B) Are you really saying the person who says something like "torturing a baby for fun is immoral" is saying something as meaningless as the person who says "clouds moving through the air is an immoral act" (as morality would not ontologically exist in reality and thus have no objectivity and no quantification; and therefore it is just as misapplied in both cases, one can not be more delusional than the other because morality does no exist at all so no quantification for which one was closer to the correct and rational mark)?

If you would it shows the type of person you are and your beliefs about reality, why would anyone listen to you about what reality is when you make or believe claims like the above (you are certainly not an honest philosophical mind to come to for truth).

Again don't we as a society view people who don't experience a moral reality as insane, broken and in need of repair (we label them things like sociopath etc..) not the other way around. Thus you should be categorized with sociopath due to your position on morality being a non-existent reality.

I am certain that if premise (1) did not entail Theism or if inferred atheism you would be shouting from the rooftops about how obvious it would be to accept our experience of a moral reality and any one who denies premise (1) is insane and immoral (in other words you have an agenda that goes as far as to warp the truth of reality).

My second premise: The argument is simple, if there is no purpose to reality then there is no oughtness to reality (which is what morality is). If you want to say this premise is false you need to defeat my argument (which only then gets us to a 50/50 on whether its true) then in its place erect your own argument for why oughtness has to be set in a purposeless background.

You said to site some sources, so I will...

This first source is taken from philosophically quarterly, they know from bottom up morality should be considered real (based on the reasoning), so they agree with premise (1). But because they do not start with a Theistic metaphysics they can find a way to metaphysically justify premise (1) (yet because premise (1) is true and only Theism can justify it, the logical solution is to say therefore Theism is true because Morality is true), so they despair:

Here is a second source by a new atheist philosopher. Just like the other new atheists he considered the first premise true, until he realized the first premise entailed the second premise and conclusion of my argument. He then denied the first premise (not on evidence but against evidence) by starting with his conclusion (that atheism is true) which is backward. He did not start from the bottom up to get to the conclusion, but he assumes with all bias because atheism is true everything that is incompatible with it (even our experiences of reality) must be false (yet we must start with our experience of reality to know what reality is).

You totally do not understand the burden of proof here. I have two premises, if you are going to make the positive claim that they are more likely false than true, you also must demonstrate why (until then you can rationally be agnostic on there validity at best).

That scraping sound I hear is the goalposts being moved.

Let me be abundantly clear about one little point:

YOU are the one making claims about the "validity of god", and YOU are making them by making some rather reaching claims about morality, the ontology thereof and so on.

Therefore, let me make something very, very clear to you: YOU are the person who is obliged to demonstrated the validity of YOUR CLAIMS.

Not me. YOU.

As for the rest of your argument, you're running in circles, repeating the same claims.

I've said it all through this discussion: You have grossly misrepresented the evolutionary concept of how morality may well have arisen in human beings. Until you correct that part of your argument, the rest of it is a ridiculous bunch of assertions - I don't care if you can write out a lovely little formal deduction based on those claims. I can do the same thing and prove that Beethoven was Indian if I make the right assumptions - the resulting argument is utterly meaningless in any reality I know.

Second point: Please go learn what delusion means. You are using it either grossly incorrectly, or you are creating false dichotomies with it. Either way, it renders much of what you are writing somewhat less than clear.

Third point: Citing quotes from Kai Nielsen and Joel Marks isn't what I meant by citing sources, and you know it. I read Kai Nielsen's paper years ago and thought it was ridiculous then. I'm not going to go into a deep analysis of it right now.

Let me be clear: when I say sources, I don't mean quote mining for pithy little bits that seem convenient. I mean find the actual paper and provide a citation for it, so that a reader can actually cross check the claim being made. A quote mined picture on a Christian-run page about "atheist answers" isn't exactly credible IMO.

To reiterate my point at the outset, I have made no positive claim one way or the other. I have, however, critiqued your arguments and the claims you have made. I have pointed out where I feel there are logical, factual and structural problems in your argument and related claims.

I have nothing to prove here, because it is not me making factual claims. Therefore, the burden of proof remains yours to carry.

50 months ago

I honestly would like to leave this here. I feel any one reading through this thread will see the truth of the situation now. I don't need to state anymore or defend anything, your position has self evidently failed.

So I would like to thank you for helping to present my position in the best light with your pitiful attempt at attacking the reality of morality. It helps to show people who read through this to see if this is the best a person can do and if this is the state of intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance (biased standards) one must have to go to as an atheist, then long live Theism.

I need to go to bed now, I thank you for this dialogue :) it was fun and I hope many honest seekers of truth read through this thread. I will be posting it on my FB page to encourage others to read it and see how defeated atheism is.

How laughable, another theist attempting to claim victoy from the jaws of defeat. Your god must have failed you.

May Dawkins have pity on you Yochanan.

You ignored rationism & reason in favour of opinion & conjecture.

Michelle & Kate won this hands down

50 months ago

@Alex...

Just out of interest which premise did they prove was false or more likely false than true. And which was the single best argument for that?

GOD bless

50 months ago

The irony of this whole discussion is a thiest comes to put forth an arguement about how moralality proves god and then proceeds to mock, cajole, & provoke his opponents in an utterly imoral fashion with statements such as these.

"your pitiful attempt at attacking the reality of morality."-Condescending

“Wow, you are angry, calm down.”- Projecting

“I do not need to give evidence for that position lol.” -conceited

“most emotional knee jerk reaction” -Provocative

“Look I am busy and can not just go down this silly list.” -irrational

“I honestly don't know whether to laugh at such a ridiculous point or cry, one thing is for sure in my mind and that is that you win the village atheist” –mocking

So in summation what we have is an arrogant theist attempting another ‘preach and run’. Yochanan does not have the balls to stand and defend this poorly made point once it has been challenged by reason & common sense. What irony that a moral argument is made using immoral tactics.

Updated 50 months ago by the author.

50 months ago

@Alex...

You have just made an ad hominem, you have not actually stated which premise was false or more likely false than true, nor have you stated the argument which presented this.

I am now to assume your last claim that was 'I lost hands down' was nothing but a condescending point (which you are guilty of) and also a pure lie.

God bless

50 months ago

Incorrect Yoch.

Just to make a point, “the premise must be proven for this line of reasoning”. You failed to prove your line of reasoning and ignored when it was pointed out to you. So your case is mere opinion.

P1: Theist posts here are immoral & deceitful.

P2: Yochanan is a theist posting here.

Conclusion: Therefore Yochanan is immoral & deceitful.

Did you get the point?

Lastly argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character. I was not responding to your argument- that has been done.

I was responding to your character and your argumentative style of discussion.

Yochanan do you deny using immoral tactics. Intended to anger and provoke? You can’t, the proof is listed above in your own words. To use a phrase you are “hoist by your own petard”.

Thou shalt not bear false witness –now that is irony

“Just out of interest which premise did they prove was false or more likely false than true.”

The premise that lacked evidence to support your conjecture Yochanan is false until proven.

Michelle & Kate won this hands down & that is why you say"I honestly would like to leave this here" and flee.

May Dawkins enlighten your ignorance.

50 months ago

Burden of proof...learn the meaning.

50 months ago

@Alex...

Wow, I am shocked at the lack of coherent thinking a lot of people who pride themselves on reason have.

You say:

"The premise that lacked evidence to support your conjecture Yochanan is false until proven."

This is totally false, not only did my premise have arguments for it, but it is not to be considered false if it lacked argument (you should be agnostic until it is proven to be more likely false).

For example if my premise was "the stars are even in number" or "the universe is symmetrical", even if I gave no argument for those premises it does not mean they are false and that the stars are odd in number and the universe is Asymmetrical until proven otherwise (rather if my premises lack evidence you should be agnostic on them until evidence is brought forward to show they are false and that the stars are odd or that the universe is asymmetrical).

No wonder you think atheists win a debate, as you don't even know how to use logic or weigh evidence.

Also all you have done is say there is no evidence for my premises when I actually presented at least two positive arguments for premise (1), on top of this you failed to show which of Michelle's arguments either refuted my positive arguments or made positive arguments of her own for why morality is false.

You are a pure liar, you live a lie in order to justify a life which you know is a lie (I am almost certain you make moral claims and judgments all the time and live like morality exists - Your life testifies to your post as a lie).

Wow, thanks for this tactic in argument, I can finally prove my fairies do in fact exist. Take that skeptics.

50 months ago

@Jason...

What I find funny is that you are not attacking my argument for being false but you are attacking deductive logic.

I can address why you don't actually understand deductive logic, but firstly you are conceding that logic proves Theism but that you just reject logic (if this is not the case for the sake of argument assume logical law and prove where my argument is logically false).

Also as far as your argument goes, premise (1) is false, we know chemically what causes plants to grow.

God bless

50 months ago

No, you're just being fooled by science. Fairies cause plants to grow and you cannot prove me wrong.

I find deductive logic to be entirely useless since it can be used as I demonstrated above, and as you have also done. If you don't prove each step correct along the way, which you have failed in, anything can be logically consistent.

I have argued objective morality until my face went numb, it's really rather boring since I can prove you wrong by simply citing the word "abortion". Since different cultures and people view the morality of actions differently, morality cannot be anything but subjective.

50 months ago

@Jason...

I did not argue for objective morality, I argued from ontological morality.

Also your belief fairies grow plants is less superior as you have no evidence (just an assertion), but my claim that fairies don't grow plants has the evidence of science, observation of gardeners, the laws of physics being against invisible physical entities (also physically no human body can be that small and survive) etc... etc...

So my belief is far more probable than yours (and that is all I am arguing form before you say a position is more probable than its counter you need argument), but this has nothing to do with the claim morality is false (as if you get a free pass saying this).

I give two positive arguments for why morality ontologically exists, I also address two possible defeaters brought against one of the arguments (so if you want to say morality is more likely false than true you have to not only knock down my arguments but then present your own).

God bless

50 months ago

“This is totally false, not only did my premise have arguments for it,”

Having arguments for a premise does not make it true and an argument is not the same as evidence.

You even admit “rather if my premises lack evidence you should be agnostic on them until evidence is brought forward”

Therefore I have just proven you to be immoral and deceitful by the standards of most religions & common courtesy.

“Also all you have done is say there is no evidence for my premises when I actually presented at least two positive arguments for premise (1)” & the proof of these two positive arguments are???? Where?

“I did not argue for objective morality, I argued from ontological morality.” What is the difference in your own words?

“So my belief is far more probable than yours (and that is all I am arguing form (for?)” Wrong there is no way for you to prove the probability of belief. That is called faith & faith is the opposite of proof.

“I give two positive arguments for why morality ontologically exists (without evidence to support these claims), I also address two possible defeaters” (Without evidence)

evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do you have evidence for your contention that I am “a pure liar” Yochi? No, pots an kettles, oh wait…you are the only one here with a moral issue. I think I hit a nerve. Ouchy.

50 months ago

@Alex...

You said:

//////////

“This is totally false, not only did my premise have arguments for it,”

Having arguments for a premise does not make it true and an argument is not the same as evidence.

//////////

An argument is based on what is considered evidence and evidence does not come with a label or has anything ontologically different to "none evidence". Evidence is just our interpretation of an aspect of reality that verifies a bigger construct of reality.

For example a man could believe his wife is having an affair, he then may see she is distant in her thoughts; so he may take her distant thoughts (a smaller aspect of realty) to construct a more verifiable model (bigger construct of reality) that this is evidence she is cheating on him...

You said:

//////////

You even admit “rather if my premises lack evidence you should be agnostic on them until evidence is brought forward”

Therefore I have just proven you to be immoral and deceitful by the standards of most religions & common courtesy.

//////////

Even if you interpret my comments as rude (which you can not prove my intent on writing them was, only me and God really know that) they in no way show I am deceitful (so again you are a liar).

You said:

//////////

“Also all you have done is say there is no evidence for my premises when I actually presented at least two positive arguments for premise (1)” & the proof of these two positive arguments are???? Where?

//////////

My two arguments are in the initial argument, I am not writing it all out again.

Basically the first argument is that our experience of a moral reality falls into what philosophers call a properly basic belief (that means it is not inferred from anything more fundamental than it's self). Other examples of a properly basic belief are my belief I am self aware, my belief in an external world of objects outside my mind, my belief I am conscious and my belief in a moral reality (which is the thing in question).

So if you want to deny a properly basic belief as being true (as it is a belief which is based on our fundamental experience of reality at that which we infer other beliefs from) you have to give a defeater, otherwise you will have an whimsically incoherent and irrational epistemic criteria (so for example some one could not just say I accept self awareness but not consciousness whimsically, he would have to give a defeater for why consciousness is false if he wants to hold onto self awareness).

I then cover two possible defeaters which fail, so this position stands as a positive argument for why our experience of a moral reality should be considered true (as we also consider all other properly basic beliefs true or we should consider them all false).

My second argument was based on the reductio ad absurdum nature of what one would have to claim is true about the nature of reality once they accept moral ontology does not exist.

You said:

//////////

“I did not argue for objective morality, I argued from ontological morality.” What is the difference in your own words?

“So my belief is far more probable than yours (and that is all I am arguing form (for?)” Wrong there is no way for you to prove the probability of belief. That is called faith & faith is the opposite of proof.

//////////

I have to LOL here, are you really willing to commit to the claim probability theories are all totally false (whether it be judicial systems, historical methodologies, Quantum mechanic theories etc.. etc..).

I wonder how local betting shops handle making any money as there is no probability values to predict the likely hood of any future event.

You sir clearly have no idea what on earth you are talking about, I can not believe I am wasting time writing all this when you will probably not accept any of it and understand little of it (against all sound understanding I might add).

Also your idea of faith is called fideism, and that is not the only position of faith and it is not the faith I am clearly ever talking about. Yet you have no proof that morality is a delusion and thus by your definition own definition you have faith at best (in fact your faith goes against the facts it is not just absent of them) and yet you state it as fact (while I am busing actually doing the work of presenting a proper argument).

You said:

////////

“I give two positive arguments for why morality ontologically exists (without evidence to support these claims),

///////

Honestly you have no idea what you are talking about. I will explain something but it will probably be wasted on you.

For this example I will label a claim as (X) and the claims opposite as (~X).

OK it can not be the case that (X) can ever have a type of evidence which can support it which (~X) could not have also. So if science could not possibly prove (X) to be true it is also could not possibly prove (~X) to be true, so if maths could not possibly prove (X) to be true it also could not possibly prove (~X) to be true, so if historical studies could not possibly prove (X) to be true it also could not possibly prove (~X) to be true etc.. etc...

So by limiting what constitutes as evidence for (X) also means it can not be evidence for (~X) either. So that means if you limit your categories of evidence which (X morality existing) could not possibly fulfill then you also limit it showing the opposite claim is true (~X morality does not exist) - so we are left with hard agnosticism at best.

But my arguments have evidence, as evidence has no ontological existence lol it is a mental inference made from an experience in reality (and that is what my arguments are based on).

Your definition of evidence is:

"he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

My fact is our experience of a moral reality is properly basic and that validates it's truth content. Now address that for once...

God bless

50 months ago

Since you seem to be completely hung up on the idea that arguing "moral ontology" allows you to make all sorts of claims as if they are true, and then demand that the rest of us accept that, I'm going to explain why that entire approach is utter nonsense.

First, let's start off with a working definition of Ontology, shall we? Borrowing from Wikipedia:

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

The concept of Moral Ontology is therefore in some large part defined as "Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals"

Now, stepping back to your OP, you wrote:

P1: Morality ontologically exists.

P2: An atheistic metaphysics can not account for the existence of a ontological morality.

You have attempted to support this somewhat arbitrarily by claiming that because human beings have a concept of "moral actions" and "immoral actions" that therefore, there is some metaphysical reality to morality.

That's a pretty big claim. By pushing it into a metaphysic about reality, you appear to be claiming that morality is external to the individual. Further, you are also ignoring several related and different philosophical approaches to morality including deontological ethics such as those of Kant.

Since there are multiple philosophical approaches to the study of morality, and therefore to its ontology, your first claim is neither axiomatic nor particularly well substantiated by supporting evidence.

Proposition 2 claims that no atheist metaphysics can account for an ontological morality.

This is also nonsense. Since ontology is the study of "being, becoming, existence and reality", and therefore moral ontology is the study of morals and their origins, existence and reality, your assertion in proposition 2 is less than persuasive.

If, for example, I were to argue that morality exists within each individual separately and shared as a social construct, I have satisfied the basic notion of what ontology in general is expected to help us understand. I may go a bit further into topics of evolution and psychological development to explain how humans developed a morality, but on the whole, I can make that claim and have a "moral ontology" that in fact fits quite nicely into an atheist understanding (or metaphysics, if you will), as it makes no claim that requires a "god", and that's without resorting to Kant, Nagel or other deontological thinkers.

The upshot is that you have been running around here trying to assert the reality of "god" via "ontological morality" by grossly abusing what the term ontology means, and how that applies to the subject of morality.

Look I do not have much time to waste on FB. Moral ontology the way I describe it is used by many philosophers I know. But this is all semantics, labels mean nothing but what matters is the substance.

So lets do this quickly one point at a time...

Firstly do you accept people have a moral experience of reality ?

P.S. I do not need long winded posts, lets keep this simple and quick...

50 months ago

I'm quite familiar with what an Ontological Argument is, and I'm also quite familiar with the problems it has. (lots)

You're coming in here making an a priori argument to derive the existence of god and then deriving god. Frankly that's nonsense.

Further, by mashing the words "moral" and "ontology" together as you have, you are in fact abusing the language and inserting a definition which I and others here clearly find more than a little bit dubious. In fact, I only find religious arguments using the term "moral ontology" at all.

Since you are posting here, I presume that you understand that few here are going to happily accept an a priori argument that starts with the supposition of "god".

In the meantime, I think I've explained quite clearly the problem I see with the terminology and the use of it.

Oh yes, and one key point when reading philosophy: Just because some philosopher has said it, doesn't make it factually true.

50 months ago

@Michelle...

It makes no difference what I use as a label, I defined it's meaning in the argument.

Also I am not using the modal ontological argument, so I haven no idea where that came from.

OK can you actually address this simple question I asked (instead of hiding behind lots of rhetoric which we both know lacks a logical structure under scrutiny) so I can present the form of my argument and show how it is sound.